Utilization of Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Trauma Patients: A Multi-Institutional Study of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma

Résumé fourni par la source

Background The purpose of this descriptive study was to characterize the utilization and outcomes of CPB after trauma. Methods This is an AAST-sponsored retrospective (2011-2021) multicenter (32 centers) study of all adult trauma patients undergoing CPB. Univariate analysis comparing demographics, clinical characteristics and the study outcomes were performed between those who required CPB≤2 hours, >2-24 hours, and >24 hours from the arrival. The primary outcome was mortality. Results There were 113 patients, 63% sustained blunt trauma. The most common injuries were cardiac (42%), thoracic aorta (42%), and pericardial tamponade (25%). The three most common reasons to use CPB were aortic repair (32%), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (20%), and cardiac repair (15%). CPB was performed within 2 hours in 44(39%), and 21(19%) underwent CPB after 24-hours. Penetrating mechanisms of injury 24 (55%) ( P = .009), higher rate of hypotension (SBP <80 mmHg) 15 (71%) ( P = .002) were more common in CPB≤2-hours. Septal ( P = .001) and valvular ( P = .002) injuries were more frequent in CPB >24 hours, otherwise there were no differences in injury patterns among CPB ≤2 hours, >2-24 hours, and >24 hours. Cardiac repair was the most common indications for CPB ≤2 hours ( P = .002), aorta repair was more common in CPB 2-24 hours ( P = .03). Complications were not different between CPB ≤2 hours, >2-24 hours, and >24 hours. Among survivors, no differences in terms of discharge disposition, hospital LOS were found (all P > .05). Mortality was 22% with 96% of them undergoing CPB in the first 24 hours ( P < .001). Conclusions CPB is rarely used for traumatic injuries. The true impact of CPB is unknown and should be studied in comparison to patients with cardiovascular injuries that are repaired without CPB. Level of Evidence Level IV; Therapeutic/Care Management.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.